Return to Home Page
1997
Frequency,Usage and Their Relationship to Quality Variables
Paul Herbig
Abstract of In this study we examine consumers’ perceptions of quality and analyze relationships between various quality attributes and various frequency and usage variables. This was done by a consumer survey of quality attributes which were then regressed onto frequency and usage indicators. We provide results and make recommendations based upon the results received.
Introduction
Quality has many definitions. Ask an engineering or manufacturing type and the answer you would most likely get is performance to specifications. In this vein, McDonalds is a quality operation. Ask a marketer and the definition you would most likely get is having “Superior Value Added” or “exceeding customer expectations”. A Five Star Restaurant would then be considered high quality even though its operation would in all likelihood not approach the same consistency as seen in the average McDonalds Franchise. They are both right in their own frame of reference. The average consumer prefers more quality to less quality, wants the result to be defect free, reliability and safety but beyond that usually can not define explicitly the concept.
Quality has been talked about a lot but very few seem to do much on the subject. Ask anyone over the age of fifty and they will quite candidly admit that the level of quality of the typical American good or service has severely degraded from what they remember in the fifties. The search for quality is arguably the most important consumer trend of the 1980s and the decade of the 90’s; consumers are now demanding higher quality in products than ever before. According to a Whirlpool Corporation study, nearly four out of five American consumers claim to be more demanding about quality now than in prior years. One major reason for the inroads the Japanese auto companies have made in the United States has been quality. It may be only fit and exteriors as some Detroit executives say, but whatever it is customers want it and as a result are threatening Detroit’s own survival. In an alarming admission, Buick in their 1990 ads proudly indicate that they are the only American car manufacturer in the top ten ratings of quality models, fifth place anywhere else would not get that level of boastful activity. And in this day and age of the LBO and Junk bonds, if it can not be readily quantified in the short term, it is eliminated for cost savings. The result is short term profit that erodes a company’s quality reputation so painstakingly built up for decades. A reputation is not a constant, it can (and has) as too many companies have learned the hard way vanish if not maintained. So Quality has been decreasing and to many consumers it has vanished.
There is little disagreement that quality (or more accurately the lack of it) is a major problem in our country today. However unless it is more readily defined, quantified, understood, it can not be improved. In this paper, we discuss the concept of perceived quality, examine it from the customer’s perspective, from the provider’s perspective, and from the perspective of the manager. We propose that perceived quality differs significantly between all three entities. We propose that quality is indeed in the eye of the beholder and if a company wishes to prosper, it must first identify those elements its client base believes is important, create a quality product based upon those elementsand then train his providers to meet the customer orientation of quality and not that of their own or management’s.
Quality
Few academic researchers have attempted to define and model quality because of the difficulties involved in delimiting and measuring the construct. There are simply too many definitions of quality. To many quality means a condition of excellence implying fine quality as distinct from poor quality…Quality is achieving or reaching for the highest standard as against being satisfied with the sloppy or fraudulent. To others, differences in quality amount to differences in the quality of some desired ingredient or attribute. To many academics, Quality refers to the amounts of the unpriced attributes contained in each unit of the priced attribute (Garvin 1988).
Crosby (1979, 1986) defines Quality as “conformance to requirements.” and means a product should be built according to formally-stated specifications and Quality is achieved when a product is produced the way it’s supposed to be. If a Cadillac conforms to all the requirements of a Cadillac it is a quality car. If a pinto conforms to all the requirements of a pinto then it is a quality car. Luxury or its absence is spelled out in specific requirements such as carpeting or rubber mats. Quality means both “better” and “cheaper”, that is, any product or process can be made more efficiently (cheaper and faster) and more error-free. This is a difficult concept for American manufacturers to understand as Americans have traditionally seen quality and low cost as opposites since manufacturers have been concerned primarily with mass production of the cheapest goods in the largest quantity available. Quality is in fact not a function of higher costs and extra labor but rather one of design and production. Quality is a built-in feature of any object; low quality refers to bad planning as well as bad workmanship and production errors. Quality is not limited to only how well specifications are followed, but also to the improvement of current production procedures and the specifications themselves. Low quality to the Japanese is seen as the result of inefficiency: a “good” product is both error-free and made as cheaply (efficiently) as possible. According to the prevailing Japanese philosophy, and seconded by Crosby and many manufacturing types, quality is “zero defects-doing it right the first time.”
Gronroos (1989) distinguishes between “technical quality” (what is delivered) and “functional quality” (how it is delivered). He believes the “how” of service delivery-for example, the appearance and behavior of a restaurant waiter-is critical to perceptions of service quality. Process quality is judged by the customer during the service. Output quality is judged by the customer after the service is performed. The barber’s conversation and apparent skill during the hair cut involves process quality; the appearance of the hair after the haircut involves output quality. A banker defined quality as it “is setting standards regarding customer needs and meeting them.” A securities brokerage executive answered, “Service quality is true representation of the client’s interest first and foremost.” A product repair executive responded, “Service is a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost by a competent technician who does it right the first time.” Thus we can truthfully say quality and its requirements are not easily articulated by either producers or consumers.
One of the most difficult challenges for industrial marketers is the ability to identify what the customer wants and then develop programs to deliver the desired level of service. One of the most important is the time dimension of quality which includes: 1. search qualities, which the customer can perceive prior to the purchase, and includes information about the product’s expected performance and takes the form of information provided to the intended buyer. 2. experience quality, which is based on a post-purchase evaluation of the product, and 3. credence quality, which is involved with the overall credibility of the product offer. All three are distinct and a marketer may focus on the wrong one. For example, a marketing program may place all of its emphasis on information and credence. Information prior to the purchase could be conveyed through extensive sales literature and product knowledge by the salesperson. Credence could be created through use of image advertising, both for the product and the company selling it. The customer may be totally neglected after the sale, with no follow-up calls or assistance with minor problems. This oversight is the experience dimension of quality could cost future sales (Powers 1988). Another area of service quality focuses on the difference between tangible qualities -- which the customer can see -- and intangible qualities such as reliability, responsiveness, assurance on the part of employees, and empathy by the firm for customers. Industrial marketers can improve quality by: 1. determining customer expectation level through market research, 2. learning customer perceptions of service level, and 3. taking action.
Quality is a different beast for service related companies. In labor intensive services quality occurs during service delivery, usually in an interaction between the client and the contact person from the service firm . The service firm may also have less managerial control over quality in service where consumer participation is intense (e.g., haircuts, doctor’s visits) because the client affects the process. In these situations, the consumer’s input (description of how the haircut should look, description of symptoms) becomes critical to the quality of service performance. When purchasing goods, the consumer employs many tangible cues to judge quality: style, hardness, color, label, feel, package, fit. When purchasing services, fewer tangible cues exist. In the absence of tangible evidence on which to evaluate quality, consumers must depend on other cues. In most cases, tangible evidence is limited to the service provider’s physical facilities, equipment, and personnel(Parasuraman). In judging product quality, customers often use intrinsic cues such as price, advertising , or brand name. Because of service intangibility, a firm may find it more difficult to understand how consumers perceive services and service quality (Gronroos 1982).
In general these differences between service and product quality are true:
•Service quality is more difficult for the consumer to evaluate than goods quality.
•Service quality perceptions result from a comparison of consumer expectations with actual service performance.
•Quality evaluations are not made solely on the outcome of a service; they also involve evaluations of the process of service delivery.
•Service quality is a measure of how well the service level delivered matches customer expectations. Delivering quality service means conforming to customer expectations on a consistent basis.
Quality can be examined via a varies of approaches. Some of these include:
1. The Transcendent Approach. Quality is viewed as a simple, unanalyzable property that people learn to recognize only through experience. Examples include art, music, and the performing arts.
2. The Product-Based Approach. Quality is reflected by an ingredient or attribute of the product. The use of cashmere wool in clothing is illustrative.
3. The User-Based Approach. This concept of quality is based on the buyer’s assessment of quality. Determination of consumers’ ideal points on preference maps for products is an example.
4. The Manufacturing-Based Approach. Quality is considered in terms of engineering and manufacturing practice - conformance to specifications. The quality focus of the user-based approach.
5. The Value-Based Approach. The value perspective considers the tradeoffs between quality and price. Thus, a very high-quality product carrying a price that is not feasible for most buyers., would display low value. The highest value represents the most favorable combination of quality and price.
Various dimensions have been used to characterized quality. These include: reliability, responsiveness, competence, courtesy, communications, credibility, security, assurance, empathy, serviceability, aesthetics{look, feel , sound and taste}, features, and perceived quality (Cravens Holland, Lamb, and Moncrief 1988). Reliability involves consistency of performance and dependability. Responsiveness concerns the willingness or readiness of employees to provide service. Competence means possession of the required skills and knowledge to perform the service. Access involves approachability and ease of contact. Courtesy involves politeness, respect, consideration, and friendliness of contact personnel. Communication means keeping customers informed in language they can understand. Credibility involves having the customer’s best interests at heart. Security is the freedom from danger, risk, or doubt. Assurance is knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence. Empathy is the caring, individualized attention that our firm provides to its customers. Tangibles are those things the customer can see, such as physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel. Even perfectly objective characteristics, however, are open to varying interpretation. Today durability is regarded as an important element of quality. Long-lived products are generally preferred to products that wear out more quickly. But that was not always true. Until the late nineteenth century, durable goods were primarily possessions of the poor, for only wealthy individuals could afford delicate products that required frequent replacement or repair. The result was a long-standing association between durability and inferior quality, a view that changed only with the mass production of luxury items made possible by the Industrial Revolution. The service quality challenge is to meet-or better yet, exceed-customer expectations(Berry).
In summary, quality has traditionally been defined in one of three ways. 1)Quality is conforming to specifications; quality of an item depends on how well it measures up against a set of specifications; a Mercedes may be a high quality car or it might be of lower quality than a Chevy if the Chevy conforms better to the design and performance standards for it. This definition is inadequate because it misses the difference in performance between products.
2)Quality is fitness for use. This approach is more user-oriented: “quality lies in the eyes of the beholder.” Different users have different needs, and to the extent that a product is designed and manufactured to meet those needs, quality is dependent on how well it fulfills them. Individuals consumers are assumed to have different wants or needs, and the goods that best satisfy their preferences are the ones they regard as having the highest quality. This is an idiosyncratic and personal view of quality, and one that is highly subjective. For business travelers, the highest quality airline is usually the one with the best record of on-time arrivals and departures; for vacationers, it may be the one with the finest food, the quickest in-flight service, or the most interesting movies. In the marketing literature, it has led to the notion of “ideal points”: precise combinations of product attributes that provide the greatest satisfaction to a specified consumer. In the economics literature, it has led to the new that quality differences are captured by shifts in a product’s demand curve. And in the operations management literature, it has given rise to the concept of “fitness for use.” Each of these concepts, however, faces two problems. The first is practical: how to aggregate widely varying individuals preferences so that they lead to meaningful definitions of quality at the market level. The second is more fundamental: how to distinguish those product attributes that connote quality from those that simply maximize consumer satisfaction. This definition is incomplete because quality isn’t entirely relative.
The aggregation problem is usually resolved by assuming that high-quality products are those that best meet the needs of most consumers. A consensus of views is implied, with virtually all users agreeing on the desirability of certain product attributes. Unfortunately, this approach ignores the different weights that individuals normally attach to quality characteristics and the difficulty of devising an unbiased statistical procedure for aggregating such widely varying preferences. For the most part, these problems have been ignored by theorists.
A more basic problem with the user-based approach is its equation of quality with maximum satisfaction. While the two are related, they are by no means identical. A product that maximizes satisfaction is certainly preferable to one that meets fewer needs, but is it necessarily better as well? The implied equivalence often breaks down in practice. For example, books on best seller lists are clearly preferred by a majority of readers, even though few would argue that they represent the finest available literature. Similarly, consumers may enjoy a particular brand because of its unusual taste or features but may still regard some other brand as being of higher quality. In the latter assessment, the product’s objective characteristics are also being considered.
3) Quality is innate excellence. This definition reflects the belief that although styles and tastes change, there is something enduring about works of high quality. They provide a standard against which other products are judged. Excellence, according to this view, is both absolute and universally recognizable; whatever it consists of-and the writers in this camp are distressingly vague on that point-we all know it when we see it. Michelangelo may not be your favorite sculptor, but it’s hard to deny the quality of his work. This definition while recognizing the universal aspects of quality, lacks specifics(Garvin).
Methodology:
A two page (front and back) questionnaire having 50 statements regarding quality, 7 statements regarding results, and a set of six demographic questions was used. SERVQUAL’s 22 questions were utilized as well as others describing product quality and 10 general questions regarding quality. Respondents were asked to rate on a 1 to 7 bipolar scale, how important he/she perceived these statements regarding quality. Two questions were asked regarding how many others would the customer tell if he/she were to receive unacceptable service or if he/she were to receive superior service. Five general questions were asked regarding degree of service, rating this entity overall, rating average service quality in the U.S., the degree of service which would cause you to be a regard customer, and rating this store versus all other like stores. Demographic questions included sex, age, marital status, residence, income level, and frequency of business with this entity. The questionnaire was extensively pretested before final usage.
Three different types of retail establishments were used. Permission was obtained from a national chain of general merchandise to interview in 3 of their stores in 3 different urban settings, a regional grocer in 2 different urban settings, and a regional apparel store in 2 different urban settings. Graduate assistants, trained in survey usage, randomly chose patrons and employees at each of the 8 different stores.
Approximately 30 customers from each locale were chosen. In addition, samples from four separate levels of customer employees were obtained: 10 from contact employees (clerks, cashiers, support staff, those with daily contact with customers), 5 from their supervisors, 5 from management, and 5 from back office employees (shipping, accounting, computer personnel, those with no customer contact responsibility). Customers were asked all questions; employees were only asked the first fifty, that is no frequency or demographics were asked of them.
Table 1 shows the demographic profile of the respondents
Table 2 provides the questionaire used
---------------------------PLACE TABLE 1 APPROXIMATELY HERE------
----------------------------------PLACE TABLE 2 APPROXIMATELY HERE-----
Results
Figures 2 through 8 show graphically the responses to frequency and usage questions. Regression analysis (stepwise forward) of each can be seen in tables 3 through 10. Note that since company employees were not asked frequency and usage questions, the customer responses and overall sample responses are the same.
The first question dealt with how many others would a respondent tell if he/she were to receive unacceptable service from the store. Figure 2 shows graphically the frequency of responses. A mean of 14 and a mode of 5 resulted. Table 3 shows the regression based upon the quality statements. Four factors result. Although the R2 is moderately powerful (.34), the F ratio of 34 carries a significance level of .000. Two of the factors were positive and two negative. The more confident a consumer has in the product or service and the more competitively priced it is, poorer service results in more people being told of the dissatisfaction. On the other hand, a store instilling confidence in its customers will lessen the blow. Marginally significant is advertising, the more advertising a store conducts, the fewer people are told. From this we can presume that poor service is magnified by (lack of) product attributes.Other interesting findings included the fact that single persons and widows tended to tell fewer people than married or divorced people if unsatisfied. The middle aged (46 -60) tended to indicate they tell more people (23 to 15) both if satisfied and unsatisfied (F=2.7, p<.03). More frequent shoppers tend to tell more people both if unsatisfied and satisfied than less frequent shoppers.
Figure 2 shows frequency of responses to the question: if one were to receive superior service from this entity, how many others would you tell? A mean of 17 and a mode of 5 results. Table 4 shows the regression of this question upon the quality variables. Once gain although a R2 of .36 resulted, moderately good, the F ratio of 28 provided a significance level of .000. Five variables resulted from the regression, two negative and 3 positive, surprisingly. No questions return policy was extremely important. More options also. Competitive pricing, was marginally significant but positive. Error Free Records and expensive goods were negative. One can surmise that the more expensive of good, the higher the expectations regarding the service to be received and the less effect good service has thereupon. Men tell more people on average than women do if they have received superior service (20 vs 13) (F=5, p<.02). The more income one has, the fewer people they tend to tell if good service is received.
Figure 3 shows the frequency of the question: what level of service would stop you from returning again? The mean was slightly less than ‘below average.’ Table 5 shows the regression of this upon the quality variables. High standards, no questions return policy, and more advertising were positive while knowledgeable employees and personalized attention were negative. We conclude from this that knowledgeable employees and personalized attention would slow down the exiting process while the lack of high standards, a no questions return policy, and advertising would expedite the exiting process. Single people and divorced people are less tolerant than widowed and married people, that is, the latter group will demand a lower level of service before they will refuse to return. The higher the income level, the less tolerant one tends to be of poor service.
Figure 4 shows the responses to the question: What degree of service would cause you to be a regular customer. The mean and mode as both shown in Figure 4 are ‘above average’. Table 6 shows the regression of this upon the quality variables . Product oriented items such as extensive warranty, full product line, no questions return policy and competitively priced products were positive and highly significant, with the last two being the most powerful. Marginally significant but positive was having name brands. Have negative coefficients (although small) were error free records and understanding needs of customers. The R2 was .89 with a F ratio =284 and a p<.000. This would seem to indicate that service to return is highly related to the product set of the entity, that is the product offerings, availability, pricing, and warranty. Without these items present, returning would be out of the question. The young are more tolerant, the older less tolerant of bad service; the elderly are more demanding if one is to become the recipient of regular customerhood from them. Likewise, the higher the income, the more demanding one tends to be.
Figure 5 shows the responses to the question: How would you rate this entity overall? The mean and the mode are at the ‘above average’ point. Table 7 shows the regression of this versus the quality variables. Nearly identical results appear as for the previous response. Product set items such as extensive warranty, no questions return policy, competitive pricing, and full product line are positive while error free records is a small negative. No questions return and competitive pricing are the strongest and most significant results. The R2 of .88 with a F ratio of 343 and a p<.000 indicate the predictive values inherent. It appears that the product set of the entity is the strongest indicators of how a customer rates the entity. Less frequent shoppers rate the entity has lower overall quality while more frequent shoppers rate the entity has superior quality (F=4.2, p<.002).
Figure 6 shows the responses to the question: How would you rate the average service quality in the U.S. ? The mean and the mode are nearly equivalent at the “average” point and the graph approximates a normal distribution. Table 8 shows the regression of this versus the quality variables. The same product set attributes appear: extensive warranty, no questions return policy, competitive pricing, and advertising as positives with knowledgeable employees as negative. It would appear that once again the availability of product is most important while the average respondent had very little positive to say about knowledgeable service employees in America. The R2 was .87 with a F ratio of 311 and a p<.000. Higher income people tended to rate the average service quality in the U.S. as much lower than lower income people (F=2.8, p<.02). In an U shape curve, the young and the elderly rate the average service quality highest while the middle age brackets rate it lower (F=4, p<.003). Single rate it high while married and divorced people rate service quality in the U.S. much lower on average (F=3.6, p<.01).
Figure 7 shows the frequency of the responses to the question: How would you rate this store versus all other like store? The mean and the mode were roughly equivalent at the ‘above average’ Table 9 shows the regression of this versus the quality variables. The same product set resulted with negative coefficients for error free records and rapid response. A R2 of .88, F ratio of 258 and p<.000 shows power.
Once again, the availability of product set is uppermost in most consumers’ minds.
Figure 8 shows frequency of purchase. The mode and mean are at the weekly point. Table 10 shows frequency regressed upon the quality indicators. Four variables were extremely powerful : doing things right the first time,having an extensive warranty or guarantee, having easily found products, and meeting standards. The R2 was .935 with a F ratio of 718 and a p<.000. This clearly indicates the power of the product set in not only selection of entities but in frequency of purchase at entities. The lower the frequency of purchase, the less concern about having an easily found Product or service available (F=2.384, p<.053).The lower the frequency of purchase, the less strongly the customer feels quality is a comparative advantage for a company (F=4.634, p<.001). The lower the frequency of purchase, the less the customer rated the store (F=4.336, p<.002).
management implications
References
Archibald, Robert B.; Clyde A. Haulman and Carlisle E. Moody, Jr. (1983) “Quality, Price, Advertising, and Published Quality Ratings”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, March
Berry, Leonard L.; Valarie A. Zeithaml and A. Parasuraman (1985) “Quality Counts in Services, Too”, Business Horizons, Vol. 28, Number 3, May/June 1985
Brown, Stephen W. and Teresa A. Swartz (1989), “A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Quality” Journal of Marketing, volume 53 number 2, 92-98
Cravens, David W., Charles W. Holland, Charles W. Lamb, Jr., and William C. Moncrief III (1988) “Marketing’s role in product and service quality”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.: 17, 285-305
Crosby, Philip B. (1979), Quality Is Free, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company
______________(1986) Running Things, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company
Garvin, David A. (1988) “Managing Quality”, The Free Press
_____________ (1984) “Product Quality: An Important Strategic Weapon”, Business Horizons, Vol. 27, Number 3, May/June 1984
_________________ (1987) “Competing On The Eight Dimension Of Quality”, Harvard Business Review, November/ December
Gronross, Christian (1990), Service Management and Marketing, Lexington Mass: Lexington Books
Gummesson, Evert (1987) “A Company Study Using Internal Marketing To Develop A New Culture - The Case of Ericsson Quality”, The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 3, Summer
Hjorth-Anderson, Chr. (1984) “The Concept of Quality and the Efficiency of Markets for Consumer Products”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, September
Kearn, Robert (1989) “Is Everybody Happy”, Business Marketing, Vol.: 74, Iss: 12, Pgs: 30-31, 34-36
Kirmani, Amna; Peter Wright (1989) “Money Talks: Perceived Advertising Expense and Expected Product
Kohoutek, Henry J. (1988) “Coupling Quality Assurance Programs to Marketing”, Industrial Marketing Management, 17, 177-88
Parasuraman, A.; Valarie A. Zeithaml and Leonard L. Berry (1985) “A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research”, Vol. 49, (Fall 1985), pp. 41-50
Powers, Thomas L. (1988) “Identify and Fulfill Customer Service Expectations”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol.: 17, Iss: 4, Pgs: 273-276
Reddy, Jack; Abe Berger (1983) “Three Essentials of Product Quality”, Harvard Business Review, July/August
Sherden, William A. (1988) “Gaining the Service Quality Advantage”, The Journal of Business Stategy, March/April
Shetty, Y.K. (1987) “Product Quality and Competitive Strategy”, Business Horizons, May/June
Simmonds, Colin (1989) “The Pursuit of “Preferred Supplier” Status”, Industrial Marketing Digest (UK), Vol.: 14, Iss: 3, Pgs: 127-133
Zeithaml, Valarie A.; Leonard L. Berry and A. Parasuraman (1988) “Communication and Control Processes in the Delivery of Service Quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, (April 1988), 35-48
CRONIN J.J.JR. TAYLOR S.A. (1992), “MEASURING SERVICE QUALITY: A REEXAMINATION AND EXTENSION,” Journal of Marketing, 56/3 (July), PP.55-68.
BROWN S.W. SWARTZ T.A.(1989), “A GAP ANALYSIS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE QUALITY,” Journal of Marketing, 53/2 (April), PP.92-98.
ZEITHAML V.A.(1988), “ CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF PRICE, QUALITY, AND VALUE: A MEANS-END MODEL AND SYNTHESIS OF EVIDENCE,” Journal of Marketing, 52/3 (July),PP.2-22.
ZEITHAML V.A. BERRY L.L. PARASURAMAN A. (1988), “COMMUNICATION AND CONTROL PROCESSES IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICE QUALITY,” Journal of Marketing, 52/2 (April),PP.35-48.
REIDENBACH R.E.SANDIFER-SMALLW (1990), “EXPLORING PERCEPTIONS OF HOSPITAL OPERATIONS BY A MODIFIED SERVQUAL APPROACH, “ Journal of Health Care Marketing, 10/4 (December), PP.47-55.
WHITE P.D. CUNDIFF E.W. (1978),”ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, “ Journal of Marketing, 42/1 (January)
WOODSIDE A.G. (1991), “ COMMENTARY ON...WHAT IS QUALITY AND HOW MUCH DOES IT REALLY MATTER?” Journal of Health Care Marketing, 11/4 (December), PP.61-67.
WOODSIDE A.G. FREY L.L.DALY R.T. (1989), “LINKING SERVICE QUALITY, CUSTOMER SA5TISFACTION, AND BEHAVIORAL INTENTION, “ Journal of Health Care Marketing, 9/4 (December) PP.5-17.
EISENHART T. (1990),” LET THE CUSTOMER BE THE JUDGE OF QUALITY,” Business Marketing, 75/8 (August)
BERTRAND K. (1987), “ MARKETERS DISCOVER WHAT `QUALITY' REALLY MEANS,” Business Marketing, 72/4 (April), PP.58
GRONROOS C. (1984), “ A SERVICE QUALITY MODEL AND ITS MARKETING IMPLICATIONS,” European Journal of Marketing, V. 18 N. 4 PP.36-44.
MASON R.S. (1974), “PRICE AND PRODUCT QUALITY ASSESSMENT, “ European Journal of Marketing,” 8/1 (Spring), PP.29-41.
BOLTON R.N. and DREW J.H. (1991), “A MULTISTAGE MODEL OF CUSTOMERS' ASSESSMENTS OF SERVICE QUALITY AND VALUE,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17/4 (March)PP.375-384.
CARMAN J.M. (1990),”CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICE QUALITY: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE SERVQUAL DIMENSIONS,” Journal of Retailing ,66/1 (Spring), PP.33-56.
PARASURAMAN A.ZEITHAML V.A. BARRY L.L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: A MULTIPLE-ITEM SCALE FOR MEASURING CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF SERVICE QUALITY,” Journal of Retailing, 64/1 (Spring), PP.12-40.
PARASURAMAN A.BERRY L.L. ZEITHAML V.A. (1991), “REFINEMENT AND REASSESSMENT OF THE SERVQUAL SCALE,” Journal of Retailing, 67/4 (Winter), PP.420-450.
Table 1:
Demographic Profile of Respondents:468 Respondents
48 Unusable Responses
420 Usable Respones
Level of Respondent: # %
Customer 211 50.24
First Line Service 80 19.04
Service Supervisors 51 12.14
Back Office 40 9.52
Management 38 9.04
Store Type:
Grocery 140 33.33
General Goods 137 32.62
Apparel 143 34.05
*Gender:
Male 59 28.37
Female 149 71.63
*Age:
Under 25 29 13.88
25-35 42 20.10
36-45 60 28.71
46-60 45 21.53
Over 60 33 15.79
*Marital Status:
Single 33 15.79
Married 143 68.42
Divorced 24 11.48
Widowed 9 4.31
*Residence
City 124 61.39
Country 78 38.61
*Income Level
Less than $15K/Yr 29 15.34
$15-25 K 56 29.63
$26-40K 54 28.57
$Over 40K 50 26.45
*Frequency of Business with Institution:
Daily 23 11.22
Weekly 111 54.15
Monthly 50 24.39
Quarterly or less 21 10.25
* These demographic questions were only asked of customers, store employees were not asked.
Table 2: Copy of survey used
Please rate the level of importance given each statement based upon the scale below. The scale goes from 1 to 7 with 1= No Importance and 7=Extremely Important. Please circle the most appropriate number.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No Importance Little Some Moderate High Very Extremely
Rating Quality is
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (1)Having up-to-date equipment.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (2)Having Visually appealing facilities.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (3)Having Neat Appearing Employees .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (4)Having appealing Promotional material.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (5)Doing things right the first time.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (6)Setting and meeting high standards.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (7)Offering convenient self-service.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (8)Offering an extensive Warranty or Guarantee.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (9)Offering a full product line.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (10)Having a product which meets the manufacturer’s specifications.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (11)Having a Product or Service function as advertised when received.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (12)Having Employees interested in solving customer problems.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (13)Having Trustworthy employees.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (14)Having Error Free Records.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (15)Pleasing customers totally.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (16)Having Consistent Service.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (17)Being Notified when service will be performed.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (18)Having Prompt Service.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (19] Having a Willingness to help customers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (20)Responding to customer requests promptly.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (21)Having On-Time Delivery of goods to customers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (22]Having an easily found Product or Service.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (23)Having a Product or Service available when needed.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (24)Instilling confidence in customers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (25)Feeling confident in using the service or product.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (26)Having courteous Employees .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (27)Having Knowledgeable employees.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (28) Having a no question return policy.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (29)Having Convenient operating hours.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (30]Providing Personalized attention to customers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (31) Having Customers’ best interest at heart.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (32)Understanding one’s customers’ needs.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (33)Satisfactorily handling complaints
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (34)Meeting or Surpassing Government Standards
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (35)Soliciting Customer Attitudes
Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement on the following questions where 1= total disagreement and 5=total agreement.
1 2 3 4 5 [36] Quality is being Competitively priced.
1 2 3 4 5 [37] Companies can encourage quality by rewarding superior performance.
1 2 3 4 5 (38)Quality can provide a competitive advantage for a company.
1 2 3 4 5 (39)Quality is the keystone to a company’s marketing strategy .
1 2 3 4 5 (40)The Bigger the Company, the harder it is to provide quality service.
1 2 3 4 5 (41)A high reputation company produces only high quality products.
1 2 3 4 5 (42)The more expensive the good or service, the higher the quality.
1 2 3 4 5 [43]The Higher number of options, the higher the quality of product.
1 2 3 4 5 (44)The more advertising, the higher the quality of products.
1 2 3 4 5 (45)Name brands have higher quality than generics.
1 2 3 4 5 (46) Having an acceptable quality level is good business practice.
1 2 3 4 5 (47) High Quality means higher customer satisfaction.
1 2 3 4 5 (48)Superior Quality means exceeding customer expectations.
1 2 3 4 5 (49)Employees are happier when they provide good service and/or Products.
1 2 3 4 5 (50)Large companies have higher quality than small companies.
Please write in the most appropriate response:
(51)If you were to receive unacceptable service from this entity, how many others would you tell of the incident? ____
(52) If you were to receive superior service from this entity, how many others would you tell of this incident? ______
Answer questions 53 through 57 using the scale below.
Outstanding Above Average Average Below Average Poor
5 4 3 2 1
Circle the most appropriate number for each statement.
1 2 3 4 5 (53). What level of service would stop you from returning again ?
1 2 3 4 5 (54]. What degree of service would cause you to be a regular customer?
1 2 3 4 5 (55). How would you rate this entity overall?
1 2 3 4 5 [56].How would you rate the average service quality in the United States?
1 2 3 4 5 [57]. How would you rate this store versus all other like stores ?
Please check the most appropriate response for questions 58 through 63.
(58) Sex: ______(1) Male ______(2) Female
(59). Age: ____(1) Under 25 ___(2) 25-35 ____(3) 36-45 ____(4)46-60 ___(5) Over 60
(60)Marital Status:_____(1)Single ____(2) Married ____(3) Divorced _____(4) Widowed
(61) Residence: ______(1) City ______(2)Country
(62) Income Level:_______(1) Less than $15K/Yr. ______(2) $15-25K/Yr. ______(3) $26-40K/Yr.
_________(4) $41-75K/Yr. ________(5) $ Over76K/Yr.
(63) How often do you do business with this entity?
_____(1) Daily ___(2)Weekly ____[3] Monthly ____[4] Quarterly ______[5] Less Often
Table 3: How many would tell if dissatisfied regressed upon quality variables
N: 241
MULTIPLE R: 0.605 SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.366
ADJUSTED SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.358
VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T P(2 TAIL)
Instilling Confidence in Custome -4.528 0.969 -4.673 0.000
Feeling Confident in Product 5.002 1.052 4.755 0.000
Competitive Priced 2.458 0.877 2.802 0.006
More Advertising -1.384 0.719 -1.924 0.056
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE SUM-OF-SQUARES DF MEAN-SQUARE F-RATIO P
REGRESSION 32832.341 4 8208.085 34.219 0.000
RESIDUAL 56848.659 237 239.868
Table 4: Telling others if superior service received regressed upon quality variables
N: 240
MULTIPLE R: 0.612 SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.375
ADJUSTED SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.364
VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T P(2 TAIL)
Error Free Records -2.641 0.865 -3.053 0.003
No Question Returns 2.642 0.801 3.298 0.001
Competitively Priced 2.166 1.103 1.964 0.051
More expensive good -2.261 1.028 -2.199 0.029
More options 3.206 1.057 3.032 0.003
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE SUM-OF-SQUARES DF MEAN-SQUARE F-RATIO P
REGRESSION 50469.070 5 10093.814 28.208 0.000
RESIDUAL 84089.930 235 357.829
Table 5: Level of service stop you from returning regressed upon quality variables
N: 239
MULTIPLE R: 0.854 SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.729
ADJUSTED SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.724
VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T P(2 TAIL)
High Standards 0.315 0.066 4.795 0.000
Knowledgeable Employees -0.202 0.068 -2.994 0.003
No question return policy 0.241 0.049 4.904 0.000
Personalized Attention -0.143 0.066 -2.167 0.031
More Advertising 0.145 0.048 3.032 0.003
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE SUM-OF-SQUARES DF MEAN-SQUARE F-RATIO P
REGRESSION 709.841 5 141.968 125.760 0.000
RESIDUAL 264.159 234 1.129
Table 7: Service which would make you a regular customer regressed upon quality variables
N: 240
MULTIPLE R: 0.946 SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.895
ADJUSTED SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.893
VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T P(2 TAIL)
Extensive Warranty 0.209 0.081 2.572 0.011
Full Product Line 0.197 0.084 2.341 0.020
Error Free Records -0.240 0.073 -3.306 0.001
No Question Returns 0.362 0.064 5.650 0.000
understanding Needs -0.216 0.076 -2.858 0.005
Competitively Priced 0.325 0.076 4.248 0.000
Name Brands 0.123 0.058 2.123 0.035
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE SUM-OF-SQUARES DF MEAN-SQUARE F-RATIO P
REGRESSION 3259.079 7 465.583 284.785 0.000
RESIDUAL 380.921 233 1.635
Table 8: Rating of entity regressed upon quality variables
N: 240
MULTIPLE R: 0.938 SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.880
ADJUSTED SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.878
VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T P(2 TAIL)
Extensive Warranty 0.156 0.085 1.828 0.069
Full Product Line 0.163 0.086 1.890 0.060
Error Free Records -0.258 0.073 -3.552 0.000
No Question Returns 0.349 0.068 5.136 0.000
Competitively Priced 0.256 0.079 3.238 0.001
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE SUM-OF-SQUARES DF MEAN-SQUARE F-RATIO P
REGRESSION 3170.406 5 634.081 343.660 0.000
RESIDUAL 433.594 235 1.845
Table 8: Rating Average US Service Quality regressed upon quality variables
N: 240
MULTIPLE R: 0.932 SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.869
ADJUSTED SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.866
VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T P(2 TAIL)
Extensive Warranty 0.204 0.062 3.313 0.001
Knowledgeable Employees -0.251 0.055 -4.548 0.000
No Question Returns 0.285 0.057 4.995 0.000
Competitively Priced 0.214 0.066 3.257 0.001
More Advertising 0.208 0.052 4.033 0.000
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE SUM-OF-SQUARES DF MEAN-SQUARE F-RATIO P
REGRESSION 1978.106 5 395.621 311.050 0.000
RESIDUAL 298.894 235 1.272
Table 9: This entity compared to all other stores regressed upon quality variables
N: 240
MULTIPLE R: 0.941 SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.886
ADJUSTED SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.883
VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T P(2 TAIL)
Extensive Warranty 0.178 0.085 2.102 0.037
Full Product Line 0.203 0.090 2.263 0.025
Error Free Records -0.162 0.077 -2.107 0.036
Rapid Response -0.340 0.091 -3.754 0.000
No Question Returns 0.344 0.067 5.156 0.000
Meeting Stds 0.136 0.067 2.037 0.043
Competitively Priced 0.351 0.080 4.383 0.000
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE SUM-OF-SQUARES DF MEAN-SQUARE F-RATIO P
REGRESSION 3162.016 7 451.717 258.609 0.000
RESIDUAL 406.984 233 1.747
Table 10: Frequency of Purchase regressed upon quality indicators
DEP VAR: Q63C N: 204 MULTIPLE R: 0.967 SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.935
ADJUSTED SQUARED MULTIPLE R: 0.934 STANDARD ERROR OF ESTIMATE: 0.960
VARIABLE COEFFICIENT STD ERROR STD COEF TOLERANCE T P(2 TAIL)
Q5 0.142 0.072 0.244 0.021 1.978 0.049
Q8 0.147 0.061 0.253 0.030 2.419 0.016
Q22 0.150 0.067 0.251 0.026 2.224 0.027
Q34 0.136 0.050 0.228 0.047 2.735 0.007
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE SUM-OF-SQUARES DF MEAN-SQUARE F-RATIO P
REGRESSION 2651.505 4 662.876 718.584 0.000
RESIDUAL 184.495 200 0.922